Posted on 05/27/2004 6:34:10 PM PDT by wagglebee
"The ultimate arbiter [of the Constitution] is the people of the Union..." - Thomas Jefferson, 1823
Bowing to the demands of four unelected members of its state supreme court, Massachusetts recently began issuing marriage licenses to men who want to marry men, women who want to wed women.
As other states and municipalities follow Massachusetts' lead, this cultural battle will inevitably end up in federal court. And unless action is taken, it's probably just a matter of time before a federal judge rules that homosexual "marriages" should be recognized nationwide.
As we've seen in decisions ranging from abortion to the public expression of religion, judges clearly no longer feel an obligation to connect their opinions to the U.S. Constitution or the laws of the land. In fact, the courts have started citing the laws and judicial proceedings of foreign governments to defend their findings.
And they insist their rulings are final.
That would come as news to our nation's founders, who envisioned a government of the people, not a government of black-robed rulers. The Constitution they designed established a government of divided authority with clear, unambiguous roles reserved for each of the three branches.
But today we're told that when the court violates the Constitution there is no recourse short of amending the Constitution. Congress, the executive branch and the people must simply live with its decision.
This is a myth. Judges can't force their will upon the people because the Constitution doesn't provide them with a single tool to make their rulings become reality. Unconstitutional judicial decisions only have effect if Congress and the president allow them to.
Alexander Hamilton, in a 1788 essay promoting adoption of the U.S. Constitution, says it well: "[T]he judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power. The judiciary has no influence over either the sword or the purse. . . and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither force nor will but merely judgment..." [emphasis added.]
The Founders, in their wisdom, recognized that power corrupts. So they established Constitutional mechanisms to prevent one branch from assuming too much authority. They allowed the court, within parameters, to make judgements, but left lawmaking, funding and enforcement to the stronger, elected branches.
The Constitution grants three specific powers to the Legislature and Executive that were not granted to the Courts.
The first is the power to enforce the law, which is granted exclusively to the president in Article II, Section 3.
In other words, without the aid of the executive branch, a court ruling granting a right to homosexual marriage is moot, especially since the Constitution prohibits the president from executing a court order inconsistent with the Constitution.
The Judiciary, as Hamilton said, is left with "merely judgment" that "must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments."
The second constitutional power denied the courts is the legislative spending power granted exclusively to Congress in Article 1, section 9. Simply put, if Congress does not fund a thing, that thing does not happen.
So if a federal court opines that the Constitution grants homosexuals the right to have their Massachusetts' marriage license recognized in Indiana, Congress can simply deny the funds to enforce that decision. The House did this very thing last year when it overwhelmingly passed amendments I offered denying funds to enforce court decisions banning the Pledge of Allegiance and the public depiction of the Ten Commandments.
The third power granted to Congress and denied to the courts is the authority to limit the jurisdiction of federal courts on specific topics.
The Framers of the Constitution made explicit provision for this type of check in the Constitution itself. Article I, Section 8 and Article III, Sections 1 and 2 grant Congress the authority to establish inferior federal courts, determine their jurisdiction and make exceptions to the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction.
I believe this authority is the most effective way to prevent the federal courts from creating a federal "right" for homosexuals to marry each other. So I introduced the Marriage Protection Act (H.R. 3313), which removes jurisdiction from certain federal courts over questions pertaining to the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, better known as DOMA.
DOMA says that no state is required to give full faith and credit to a marriage license issued by another state if that relationship is between two people of the same sex. It also defines the terms "marriage" and "spouse" for purposes of federal law as terms only applying to relationships between people of the opposite sex.
DOMA is good law and passed with broad support, but an imaginative federal court could easily opine that a fundamental "right" to homosexual marriage exists somewhere in the U.S. Constitution and order Hoosiers to recognize a marriage license granted to homosexuals "married" in Massachusetts.
The Marriage Protection Act addresses that possibility by removing the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction, as well as inferior federal courts' original and appellate jurisdiction, over DOMA's full faith and credit provision.
Simply put, if federal courts don't have jurisdiction over marriage issues, they can't hear them. And if they can't hear cases regarding marriage policy, they can't redefine this sacred institution and establish a national precedent for homosexual marriage.
Thirty-eight states already protect traditional marriage under DOMA. By exercising this Constitutional legislative authority we can preserve each state's traditional right to determine its own marriage policies without federal court interference.
There is a radical element in America working to change our dictionaries, our Bibles, our traditions and our laws. But it's not the institution of marriage that needs redefining. It is our understanding of the federal courts and the limitations placed on them by the U.S. Constitution. Equipped with knowledge, the American people can reclaim the governance that is rightfully theirs.
I've read the Constitution countless times, and nowhere can I find the justification for the judicial power grab that has been forced upon our nation for 200 years.
Of course the President can also says:
Isn't this pretty much the approach favored by Luis Gonzalez in his posts on other threads? If its different, would you explain, Luis?
The Framers of the Constitution made explicit provision for this type of check in the Constitution itself. Article I, Section 8 and Article III, Sections 1 and 2 grant Congress the authority to establish inferior federal courts, determine their jurisdiction and make exceptions to the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction.
All of that is true, but you simply cannot get around a judicial review of laws passed by Congress.
Yes, Congress could establish an inferior court and limit appellate review by the USSC in the area of marriage. But the new court could then rule that a marriage law passed by Congress was unconstitutional and the USSC would not be able to overturn the ruling.
Keep in mind also that the new court's judges would still have to be appointed by the President and approved by Congress.
Just ignore the court and arrest anyone who issues a marriage license.
Let the court try to enforce their decision, they don’t have LAW ENFORCEMENT abilities, the state does!
read later
| What We Can Do To Help Defeat the "Gay" Agenda |
|
|
| Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1) |
|
|
| Myth and Reality about Homosexuality--Sexual Orientation Section, Guide to Family Issues" |
Those who urge the extreme views of 'shuckin & 'jivin to circumvent the separation of powers that empowers the courts to determine what the law is are spitting into the wind. "It is solely the province of the judicial department to determine what the law is." (Marbury v. Madison, circa 1803) (a close paraphrase).......
Homosexual Agenda Ping. Makes sense to me. But if it doesn't make sense to others, what good does the truth do?
This judicial tyranny is like a form of mass hypnosis, or lemmings jumping off a cliff.
What we need is some governors with (ahem) testorone! And some Congresscritters as well and any other elected official that wants to do the right thing. But courage is desperately needed.
Let me know if anyone wants on/off this ping list.
Good post. Thank you.
I favor State Constitutional Amendments over DOMA's, and I certainly want to keep the decision out of the hands of the Federal government and keep it with the States.
My problem with the 1996 Federal DOMA (signed into law by that great defender of the institution of marriage, William Jefferson Clinton), is two fold:
2. I don't trust the Federal government.
Make the forces looking to legitimize same sex marriage fight 50 individual fights, not one "winner takes all" fight at the Federal level.
Why?
See item #2 above.
Thanks for the ping!
The Senate can filibuster it, so that even a simple majority cannot be gained.
That is why the bill should be brought before the House and the Senate BEFORE this year's election DURING a very critical phase of that campaign.
Unconstitutional judicial decisions only have effect if Congress and the president allow them to.
Bingo. So why are they allowing it?
One of the saddest days I remember was when I was redistricted out of Congressman Hostettler's district. Of course that sadness was short lived because I was districted into Congressman Steve Buyers district. (I am so blessed)
This is a myth. Judges can't force their will upon the people because the Constitution doesn't provide them with a single tool to make their rulings become reality. Unconstitutional judicial decisions only have effect if Congress and the president allow them to.
Unfortunately, the cultural institutions whose duty it is to instruct the public regarding the our form of government, the schools and media, are controlled by liberals and statists.
That's only true in cases where courts are needed to bring the act of Congress into effect. But the purpose of DOMA was to reduce the ability of the federal government to impose itself on the states. So Congress doesn't need federal courts at all to administer that law. All that's required is for states to exercise their freedom under DOMA.
It would be a very good day if and when a state defies a federal court that tries to unconstitutionally order it to do otherwise.
They don't have to fight 50 fights. All they have to do is travel to the nearest same-sex-marriage state, get "married," and return home. Either all gay activists in states not recognizing gay marriage would do this, or what is more likely, enough would do it, that all the non-gay-marriage states would eventually simply bend over and take it.
If that is so, then it seems to me that if Mr.& Mr. Smith from Massachussetts moved to Texas, they could challenge that law on the basis of the Full Faith and Credit Clause.
Disclaimer: I think it is a bogus argument and that each State should decide the marriage issue. However, I don't see what would prevent a court challenge.
If Congress removes jurisdiction from the federal courts, what court are they going to challenge it in?
Any State that simply bends over and takes it, deserves it. Anyone without the gumption to fight deserves it.
The Constitution places the right to define marriage on the States, if the simply bend over and take it, the failed to uphold their duties as American citizens, and the other side won.
The Constitution worked either way.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.